• The KillerFrogs

FWST: TCU athletic director ‘really nervous’ about California’s new Fair Pay to Play Act

Frog-in-law1995

Active Member
I think the point is that California schools, if they do have players accepting payments, would have to disassociate with the NCAA as long as the NCAA stands firm on their rules. In that case, if those players go to a California school they basically aren't marketable anymore.

Without "Kansas" on their jersey their likeness really isn't worth anything. That again is the whole point.

I'll say it again......the ire should be directed at the NBA and NFL for not letting 18-year olds play in their league, and in the case of the NFL, kids not at least three years removed from high school. If they want to get paid for the use of their likeness, DON'T PLAY AN NCAA SPORT. It's really that simple. They'll find out how valuable their likeness is without the NCAA and universities doing all the branding and marketing for them.

How marketable would Dak be without the NFL? Should he give his endorsement money to Jerry?

Not gonna matter anyway. California can’t legislate NCAA eligibility.
 

Eight

Member
How marketable would Dak be without the NFL? Should he give his endorsement money to Jerry?

Not gonna matter anyway. California can’t legislate NCAA eligibility.

no california can't, but as pointed out before a us representative is authoring legislation at the federal level.

does the federal government have the right? no clue, but i think the bigger impact is that if you are the ncaa you have the choice of letting the rules of your organization be designed by politicians? the courts? or you do something yourself.
 

Zubaz

Member
does the federal government have the right? no clue
Spoilers: Yes.

Reason: Because the entity that will determine whether the federal government has the right to regulate the NCAA is...the federal government. "I asked myself and I said it was OK!"
 

Eight

Member
Spoilers: Yes.

Reason: Because the entity that will determine whether the federal government has the right to regulate the NCAA is...the federal government. "I asked myself and I said it was OK!"

wouldn't that ultimately be the decision of the supreme court?
 

Wexahu

Full Member
How marketable would Dak be without the NFL? Should he give his endorsement money to Jerry?

Not gonna matter anyway. California can’t legislate NCAA eligibility.

Not very. In fact not at all. I get what you're saying but there is a GIGANTIC difference that I'm sure you're aware of.

If the NCAA wants to set up a system where kids are drafted by teams out of HS and then that team has absolute rights to such player for 4 years plus another year if they want to exercise an option, then that's a completely different ballgame. In other words, come December there is a big draft held and TCU gets to pick from the same pool of players as Alabama and Ohio State....and UTSA does as well. That is what the NFL does. Buffalo and Green Bay have virtually the same chance at success on the field as New York and Dallas.

Competitive balance is almost completely ignored when I hear some arguments, and without some semblance of competitive balance, the whole big money train is going to grind to a halt. I can virtually guarantee that. How excited do you think people would be to donate to TCU (or even watch TCU sports) if we have no scheissing chance to ever be competitive again? If they start allowing access for players to be paid for their likeness TCU is done as far as competing for anything other than for how big a doormat we can be for all the big state schools out there.
 

Zubaz

Member
wouldn't that ultimately be the decision of the supreme court?
Yes, I was more making a joke that when it comes to their own powers, the federal government rarely concedes. A more specific (but still joking so please don't judge me, fellow Frogs with actual law degrees) would be "something something General Welfare something something Interstate Commerce".
 

Zubaz

Member
Competitive balance is almost completely ignored when I hear some arguments, and without some semblance of competitive balance, the whole big money train is going to grind to a halt. I can virtually guarantee that. How excited do you think people would be to donate to TCU (or even watch TCU sports) if we have no scheissing chance to ever be competitive again? If they start allowing access for players to be paid for their likeness TCU is done as far as competing for anything other than for how big a doormat we can be for all the big state schools out there.
Here's the thing though: Competitive balance should be ignored if you are arguing purely on what is right and what is wrong. If the argument is that the rights of student athletes are being violated (and that is the argument, whether you agree with it or not), then "Yeah, but the NCAA wouldn't be as fun to watch" is not an appropriate response at all, because that's irrelevant. That's a results-based view on morality, one that I can't really get behind.

Where "competitive balance" should be considered is the government saying to the NCAA "Look, where's what's going to happen if you don't come up with something, and it's really going to hurt your product if it goes through" as an incentive for the NCAA to actually work something out where these kids can share in the revenue that they are a key part in generating, rather than what they've been doing which is "Sit on their butts and cling to status quo".
 

Eight

Member
If players start receiving money while playing college ball for their likeness, does then their scholarship, room board, books, tutoring service, etc. become taxable income?

good question.

how is that handled in some of the sports where athletes have been allowed to earn some prize money, but below a threshold such as in tennis?
 

HFrog12

Full Member
do you honestly believe that the athletic departments and alums at bama, ohio state, texas , georgia, etc..would be perfectly content to let the best players in the country go to the california schools?

u.s. representative mark walker on north carolina has met with ncaa representatives about the california law and walker is authoring a federal bill that would grant the same rights to all athletes across the county and a big part of his reasoning is concern over an advantage in recruiting:

“There’s no way one state could have this and maybe two or three other states and not the other states. The recruiting advantage it could give USC or UCLA. This is why this has got to get fixed,” Walker said.

consider we have the kansas basketball program being investigated for money being funneled to recruits by a shoe company so that they would play at a program they gotten paid millions to wear a specific brand of shoes.

the players are required to wear those shoes, wear that gear, are walking billboards for the shoe companies and yet they can't get paid for the use of their likeness.

I think Wexahu already touched on this but I actually do think those schools would be content with those players going to California so long as the the NCAA disassociates themselves with the California schools and everyone else they are competing with is is playing by the same rules.

I can't disagree with you if you are saying this becomes a federal deal and all schools are operating under this pay for likeness scenario. I am not hear to argue the mechanics or the reality of this happening but what I can say, for reasons I have already touched on, is there are a lot of negatives to the end result. And a lot of residual negatives for the student athletes themselves. Furthermore, it would be the end of TCU being competitive in football.

The likeness is driven by the fans of the university in which the player plays. John in Wyoming is not buying a Baker Mayfield OU jersey because he is a heisman candidate unless he already has an allegiance to OU. Players will simply gravitate to universities that have the bigger markets and fan bases.

There are so many layers to put on top of this. Does the NCAA continue to be a regulating body? D'Eriq King at Houston is taking his redshirt this year and says he will comes back to UofH because that is where he wants to be. Under the likeness scenerio how many OU boosters, and other outside parties, are going to push him to transfer to OU to be the next transfer Heisman winner and capitalize on likeness? I don't think the NCAA wants to rule over these transfer scenarios.

TCU or any school not used as an example by you above is done being competitive in the pay for likeness model.
 

Wexahu

Full Member
Here's the thing though: Competitive balance should be ignored if you are arguing purely on what is right and what is wrong. If the argument is that the rights of student athletes are being violated (and that is the argument, whether you agree with it or not), then "Yeah, but the NCAA wouldn't be as fun to watch" is not an appropriate response at all, because that's irrelevant. That's a results-based view on morality, one that I can't really get behind.

Where "competitive balance" should be considered is the government saying to the NCAA "Look, where's what's going to happen if you don't come up with something, and it's really going to hurt your product if it goes through" as an incentive for the NCAA to actually work something out where these kids can share in the revenue that they are a key part in generating, rather than what they've been doing which is "Sit on their butts and cling to status quo".

Without competitive balance there is no money to argue about. It's imperative to the success of the whole business, so it absolutely needs to be treated with the utmost importance. So "wouldn't be entertaining" absolutely is a consideration and an appropriate response, because in the entertaining business, which is really what this is, if you stop being entertaining then the money dries up. And if the money dries up, who stands to gain from this? It sure as hell isn't the student athletes.

Even player unions in the professional leagues understand that there needs to be competitive balance for the leagues to be successful.
 

Eight

Member
I think Wexahu already touched on this but I actually do think those schools would be content with those players going to California so long as the the NCAA disassociates themselves with the California schools and everyone else they are competing with is is playing by the same rules.

I can't disagree with you if you are saying this becomes a federal deal and all schools are operating under this pay for likeness scenario. I am not hear to argue the mechanics or the reality of this happening but what I can say, for reasons I have already touched on, is there are a lot of negatives to the end result. And a lot of residual negatives for the student athletes themselves. Furthermore, it would be the end of TCU being competitive in football.

The likeness is driven by the fans of the university in which the player plays. John in Wyoming is not buying a Baker Mayfield OU jersey because he is a heisman candidate unless he already has an allegiance to OU. Players will simply gravitate to universities that have the bigger markets and fan bases.

There are so many layers to put on top of this. Does the NCAA continue to be a regulating body? D'Eriq King at Houston is taking his redshirt this year and says he will comes back to UofH because that is where he wants to be. Under the likeness scenerio how many OU boosters, and other outside parties, are going to push him to transfer to OU to be the next transfer Heisman winner and capitalize on likeness? I don't think the NCAA wants to rule over these transfer scenarios.

TCU or any school not used as an example by you above is done being competitive in the pay for likeness model.

texas is in the process of a multi-million dollar building project on their stadium why?

to stay competitive with bama, uga, ohio state etc.......

they don't need it, hell, they won't see any real roi on the building unless they win.

if you honestly believe the power schools are going to sit by and allow the ncaa to dictate their fate i don't know what to tell you.

this got started back when ou and uga sued the ncaa for restraint of free trade over broadcast rights in the mid 80's and things have been sliding towards an edge for quite some time.

california may or may not be the tipping point for the ncaa, but with the new law in california and the now the efforts by the rep from north carolina the ncaa better start to take action or they might not have a say in their fate.
 

DeuceBoogieNights

Active Member
You could argue that there is already a competitive disadvantage. Only a handful of teams have a shot at winning a national championship in football. Other sports are better. Kids are being paid now, at least this would bring it more into open.
 

Zubaz

Member
Without competitive balance there is no money to argue about. It's imperative to the success of the whole business, so it absolutely needs to be treated with the utmost importance.
Maybe, but this strikes me as the the whole "the economy would collapse if we weren't allowed to own slaves, and it would be worse for the slaves too!" argument**. It's like "OK, fine, but slavery is still fundamentally wrong so you don't get to own slaves". If your business is based on an unjust arrangement, you don't get to use the negative impact on your business as an objection to a measure that rectifies that injustice. Instead, the response should be an arrangement that is more mutually beneficial.

**No, I am not in any way, shape, or form equating NCAA Players to slaves. They are not remotely the same thing, and any attempt to equate them is emotional nonsense. What I am trying to do is draw an analogy to the argument using the results of legislation as an objection to legislation aimed at an injustice. It's not particularly relevant.

Even player unions in the professional leagues understand that there needs to be competitive balance for the leagues to be successful.
Totally agree, which is why collective bargaining must always be a two way street between players and management, and everyone agrees what business they are in. As of right now, however, the players in the NCAA have 0% say in anything, and the NCAA / the schools can't even figure out whether they are in the higher education business or the professional sports & entertainment business.
 

Frog-in-law1995

Active Member
Not very. In fact not at all. I get what you're saying but there is a GIGANTIC difference that I'm sure you're aware of.

If the NCAA wants to set up a system where kids are drafted by teams out of HS and then that team has absolute rights to such player for 4 years plus another year if they want to exercise an option, then that's a completely different ballgame. In other words, come December there is a big draft held and TCU gets to pick from the same pool of players as Alabama and Ohio State....and UTSA does as well. That is what the NFL does. Buffalo and Green Bay have virtually the same chance at success on the field as New York and Dallas.

Competitive balance is almost completely ignored when I hear some arguments, and without some semblance of competitive balance, the whole big money train is going to grind to a halt. I can virtually guarantee that. How excited do you think people would be to donate to TCU (or even watch TCU sports) if we have no scheissing chance to ever be competitive again? If they start allowing access for players to be paid for their likeness TCU is done as far as competing for anything other than for how big a doormat we can be for all the big state schools out there.

Competitive imbalance is largely irrelevant to my point, but it exists in pro sports too. See Moneyball. I do agree, though, that exacerbating an imbalance issue is why we need to check how this proceeds, but I was addressing your assertion that college players don’t deserve to leverage their marketability created by their sport and school, and the implication that that’s not the case in pro sports.

If they want to get paid for the use of their likeness, DON'T PLAY AN NCAA SPORT.It's really that simple. They'll find out how valuable their likeness is without the NCAA and universities doing all the branding and marketing for them.
 

HFrog12

Full Member
Without competitive balance there is no money to argue about. It's imperative to the success of the whole business, so it absolutely needs to be treated with the utmost importance. So "wouldn't be entertaining" absolutely is a consideration and an appropriate response, because in the entertaining business, which is really what this is, if you stop being entertaining then the money dries up. And if the money dries up, who stands to gain from this? It sure as hell isn't the student athletes.

Even player unions in the professional leagues understand that there needs to be competitive balance for the leagues to be successful.

Strongly agree but morally also agree with Todd D. in some areas. I somewhat believe the players should get compensated but also think they are getting a hell of a bargain with free education, tutoring, room, meal plans, exposure, among other things. If this all goes through on a federal level then over time there will only be 10 schools that are competitive and with that the lure of college football to the casual fan goes away. Universities that have other sports and scholarships subsidized by the football program will be crushed. People will find allegiance to the NFL due to no hope of their universities being competitive. College towns gameday revenues will suffer. Might be dramatic in the trickle down, but it's pandora's box that you open.
 

Eight

Member
Strongly agree but morally also agree with Todd D. in some areas. I somewhat believe the players should get compensated but also think they are getting a hell of a bargain with free education, tutoring, room, meal plans, exposure, among other things. If this all goes through on a federal level then over time there will only be 10 schools that are competitive and with that the lure of college football to the casual fan goes away. Universities that have other sports and scholarships subsidized by the football program will be crushed. People will find allegiance to the NFL due to no hope of their universities being competitive. College towns gameday revenues will suffer. Might be dramatic in the trickle down, but it's pandora's box that you open.

at this point and time in all honesty exactly how much true competitive balance is there in college football?

if the ultimate goal is to win a title how many programs truly have a chance and how many schools have the resources to pour millions of dollars into their programs as the power programs continue to try to one up each other in regards to facilities, staff, money spent on recruiting etc......

the concept of competitive balance has become akin to the concept of amateur athletics......a great notion but in reality a fairy tale
 
You could argue that there is already a competitive disadvantage. Only a handful of teams have a shot at winning a national championship in football. Other sports are better. Kids are being paid now, at least this would bring it more into open.
The NCAA can’t even enforce what’s going on now and it’s a small number of people in the shadows. Imagine if they had to monitor and investigate thousands of athletes and their multiple offers. Not to mention their family members, street agents and other parasites that will inevitably creep into the picture.
 

HFrog12

Full Member
texas is in the process of a multi-million dollar building project on their stadium why?

to stay competitive with bama, uga, ohio state etc.......

they don't need it, hell, they won't see any real roi on the building unless they win.

if you honestly believe the power schools are going to sit by and allow the ncaa to dictate their fate i don't know what to tell you.

this got started back when ou and uga sued the ncaa for restraint of free trade over broadcast rights in the mid 80's and things have been sliding towards an edge for quite some time.

california may or may not be the tipping point for the ncaa, but with the new law in california and the now the efforts by the rep from north carolina the ncaa better start to take action or they might not have a say in their fate.

I get the feeling you are trying to create an argument that isn't there. I just said that they wouldn't care as long as the majority of their counterparts are on the same level and if the NCAA stays strong to their position against this and potentially exclude the CA schools. UT is building their stadium to stay competitive with everyone you mentioned, not UCLA, USC, or Cal at this moment.

The CA schools are looking at this as a competitive advantage. IF this becomes a national deal and the CA schools remain in the NCAA then of course I agree that all of those big schools you mentioned aren't going to sit back and not push legislation in their own states. And if/when they do that then the CA competitive advantage goes out the window and it's back to bama, uga, ohio st. etc. running the show. People in alabama and texas just care more about college football than people in CA. Nothing changes except that glimmer of hope that other programs can remain competitive.

I don't pretend to know the mechanics and law about which one of these scenarios comes first. I just think the long term affect on colleges not named UT, bama, uga, ohio st...etc. is negative.
 
Top